KUNHIMMU HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Kunhimmu Haji, is the member of the Managing Committee of the Parent Teachers Association in Government Lower Primary School, Oorakam, Kizhmuri. He has approached this Court praying for a declaration that all the Government Schools in the State including the L.P. School, Oorakam, Kizhmuri are bound to follow the Education Department Calendar issued by the Director of Public Instruction, for a declaration that the action of the State in directing the Government Schools to follow the calender of any particular religion like Muslim Calender is illegal and unconstitutional, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders in that behalf issued by the Secretary to the Government and for a direction to the respondents to follow the Education Department Calender in the L.P. School, Oorakam, Kizhmuri.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the L.P. School, Oorakam, Kizhmuri was started in the year 1927-28 and it is one of the pioneer educational institutions in the locality. The petitioner was the President of the Parent Teachers Association of the School for nearly 17 years and is deeply interested in the good functioning of the School and in its affairs. Right from the commencement of the School during the pre-independence era, the School was following the general calendar. After the introduction of the Kerala Education Department Calender for each year that was being followed by the school. The academic year used to commence in June and the School used to be closed for summer vacation by the end of March. In addition to the summer vacation, the School had the Onam and Christmas holidays. In the week, the Saturdays and Sundays were holidays. This was in addition to the other declared holidays as per the Department Calendar. The petitioner submits that during the academic year 1992-93, to the surprise and dismay of the parents, pupils and the public, the School was closed for the month of Ramzan. On enquiry with the Headmaster of the School, no satisfactory information could be obtained. The Committee of the Parent Teachers Association approached the Assistant Educational Officer for information. After repeated requests, in May, 1993 the Asst. Educational Officer ultimately gave the members of the committee a copy of an order dated 25.8.1992 issued by him directing the school to follow the Muslim Calender. The petitioner has produced a copy of that order and marked the same as Ext. P1. The order says that the majority of pupils studying in the GLPS, Oorakam, Kizhmuri belong to the muslim community. The President of the Parent Teachers Association reported the difficulty and the inconvenience for those students to participate in their religious and ritual functions if the school is allowed to continue as a general school. Considering that problem in detail, the Asst. Educational Officer was pleased to order that the School in question will thereafter follow the Muslim Calendar. The arrangement would enable the majority muslim pupils to participate in their religious rituals. The petitioner alleges that the order was issued based on the correspondence between the Asst. Educational Office on the one side and the Headmaster and the President of the Parent Teachers' Association of the School, on the other. It is stated that the President of the Parent Teachers' Association in his personal capacity appeared to have approached the Assistant Educational Officer and managed to get the order Ext. P1 issued. According to the petitioner, no final decision was taken by the Parent Teachers' Association for adopting the Muslim Calendar or authorising its President to approach any authority with any such request. The petitioner therefore, submits that respondent No. 4 and the President of the Parent Teachers' Association have acted in collusion behind the back of the Parent Teachers' Association and had procured the order Ext. P1. The petitioner submits that the change brought about in the arrangement followed in the School for more than half a century has created confusion and misunderstanding among the people and the parents. It is pointed out that hardly 50 to 75 metres away from the LP School, there is an Aided Lower Primary School following the Muslim Calendar. It is submitted that even then, majority of the students including muslim students, were rushing to the Government Lower Primary School in view of its standards in education which it has secured by following the general calendar. The petitioner contends that the action of respondents 3 to 5 is motivated and based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. On coming to know about Ext. P1 order, the members of the Parent Teachers' Association and parents and guardians submitted to the Government a representation signed by 73 persons. A true copy of the same is produced by the petitioner and marked as Ext. P2. Since, no action was taken on the representation, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 9866 if 1993 before this Court and this Court by Ext. P4 judgment dated 26.7.1993, directed the State to consider the representation made by the petitioner and others and to pass appropriate orders having due regard to a judgment rendered by this Court in O.P. No. 5991 of 1987. The petitioner has marked a copy of the judgment in O.P. 5991 of 1987 as Ext. P3. Pursuant to the direction in Ext. P4, the Government passed an order on Ext. P2 representation. A copy of the said order dated 8.1.1994, is marked by the petitioner as Ext. P5. Ext. P5 directed the Deputy Director of Education to convene a meeting of the newly elected Parent-Teacher Association to decide on the question whether Fridays and the Ramzan months are to be treated as holidays or not. Thereafter, even before the meeting could be convened, the Government issued another communication Ext. P6 dated 21.4.1994 directing the Deputy Director of Education not to convene the Parent-Teacher Association Meeting, but to continue the present arrangement pending a decision by the High Court in some Original Petitions pending in that court. It is in that circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court with the present Original Petition.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent State, it is asserted that ours is a secular State and in our Constitutional framework citizens are guaranteed equality of opportunities in matters of Education as stated by the petitioner but that the said averments have nothing to do with the case on hand. The State had not shown any discrimination as alleged in the Original Petition on the ground of religion in the matter of running of Government Schools. The School in question was at the moment following the Muslim Calendar and such a change in the calendar will not stand in the way of the proper functioning of the School as the School can enjoy public holidays including Onam and Christmas holidays as in the case of other Schools. The order Ext. P1 was issued by the third respondent based on relevant considerations. The President of the then Parent Teachers' Association as well as Headmaster of the School had requested for a change in the Calendar as the majority of the pupils studying in the School belong to the Muslim community. It is stated that the President of the then Parent Teachers Association had brought to the notice of the authorities the difficulties and inconveniences faced by the students for performing their religious rituals if the general calendar was followed. Even at present 61.1% of the students of the School belong to the Muslim community. Under R.4(3) of Chap.7 of the Kerala Education Rules, schools in which the majority of the staff or the students belong to the Muslim community, Saturdays can be made working days instead of Fridays, declaring Fridays holidays. The order Ext. P1 was issued by the 3rd respondent in good faith and no complaint whatsoever had been received against the order Ext. P1. The allegation that Ext. P1 order was issued merely to oblige the private school functioning nearby was not true. The order Ext. P5 was passed by the State on the representation Ext. P2 in accordance with the directions of this court in Ext. P4 judgment. The order Ext. P6 directing the Deputy Director of Education to keep the proceedings in abeyance, issued by the Government, had been vacated as per Government letter dated 24.11.1995 enabling the Deputy Director of Education, to implement the order Ext. P5. The petitioner therefore cannot have any grievance and the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. The functioning of the Schools in the State are governed by the Kerala Education Rules. There is specific provision in R.4(3) in Chap.7 of the Kerala Education Rules to justify the order Ext. P1 passed by the third respondent. Ext. P2 representation was considered and discussed in the order Ext. P5, passed by the Government. There are various Schools in the State which follow the calender of Muslims and this has not led to a theocratic State as feared by the petitioner. Such an apprehension on the part of the petitioner is not justified in the framework of our Constitution. It could not be stated that introduction of the Muslim calendar will perpetuate religious ill feelings as alleged in the Original Petition. The State is not imparting any religious instruction or teaching a particular religion in Government Schools and a change in the calender is envisaged only with the view to enable the students to perform their religious rituals outside the School.